Israel Considered ‘Pre-emptive Strike’ against Egypt, Syria Hours before October Attack

The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)
The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)
TT
20

Israel Considered ‘Pre-emptive Strike’ against Egypt, Syria Hours before October Attack

The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)
The Israeli military censor’s finalization of the news received by the Maariv newspaper (Maariv archive)

Fifty years ago, specifically on Oct. 3, 1973, then Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army, David Elazar, met with the editors of Hebrew newspapers and told them: “No war will break out soon... You can sleep peacefully.”

The journalists felt reassured, except for one: The editor-in-chief of the Maariv newspaper, Aryeh Disenchik. His military correspondent, Jacob Ayers, was confident that war was coming. He had a brother serving in the army and was monitoring Egyptian movements on the western end of the Suez Canal. He knew that those were not mere exercises, but preparations for an imminent war.

Disenchik decided to cover the news in a spirit that contradicted the reassurances conveyed by the Chief of Staff.

Ayers prepared a story entitled, “Suspicious Movements of the Egyptian Army,” in which he spoke about build-ups of Egyptian tanks and missile batteries and excessive movement of aircraft in the air, and concluded with a sentence that read: “The Israeli army is alert to these movements and stands in front of them with high preparedness.”

He sent the article to the military censor, who crossed out almost all of the lines except for the last sentence.

Twenty-two years after that incident, in 1995, Ayers served as editor-in-chief of the newspaper. He printed a copy of the paper on which the news was written, along with what had been crossed out by the military censorship, and hung it on the wall behind his office. He wanted to recall his journalistic achievement, which had been suppressed by the censorship, but also insisted, on every occasion, to apologize to the public, because he adhered to the law by submitting the news to censorship.

This incident was one of the forgotten stories in the Israeli political arena, but is making a strong comeback, after researchers Ephraim Lapid (worked as army spokesman from 1984-1989) and Ron Gabayan (served in the army spokesman’s department from 2016-2022) decided to teach it in colleges.

The two researchers prepared a study on the role of the Israeli Army Spokesperson’s Department during that war, within the framework of the official Israeli decision to release a large amount of secret documents about the October War or “Yom Kippur.”

The Israeli government also took a decision three years ago to release most of the documents related to the October War, when it marked its 50th anniversary.

At the beginning of September 2022, the Israeli State Archive published the contents of 1,400 document files, and about 1,000 Photographs, 850 audio recordings and video clips, and more than 250 brief notes.

Israel also revealed the diary of the office of then Prime Minister Golda Meir, which covered the pre and post-war period, until the Separation of Forces Agreement in 1974. The diary revolved around the political and military aspects and international and regional diplomatic communications conducted by the Prime Minister’s office at the time, as documented by Eli Mizrahi, who served as director of the office. The journal contained 3,500 files with hundreds of thousands of pages.

The Israeli Mossad also published a book, for the first time in its history, about the circumstances of the 1973 war, under the title, “Some Day When We’ll Be Allowed to Tell.”

The accounts reflected the contradictory positions expressed by the various bodies that played a role in the October War, regarding what is known in Israel as “the corruption of great negligence.”

Israeli information about the Egyptian and Syrian mobilizations was dealt with “arrogance” in Tel Aviv. The head of military intelligence, Eli Zaira, stated during a consultation session with the Prime Minister - 28 hours before the war - that he had a complete copy of the plan prepared by the Syrian army against Israel, and a summary of the attack plan prepared by the Egyptian army.

According to Israeli documents, Zaira was confident that Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and his Syrian counterpart, Hafez al-Assad, did not intend to fight Israel, and that all military movements undertaken by their armies constituted a show-muscle in front of Israel.

The Army Chief of Staff, Elazar, approved this opinion, as did Defense Minister Moshe Dayan. Even when the Mossad issued a war warning at six o’clock on Oct. 6, Dayan objected to the mobilization of reserve forces, arguing such matter will spark an uproar against Israel and will greatly cost the economy.

Hours after Zaira downplayed the Egyptian-Syrian movements, the documents reveal that the Israeli political and military leaders were discussing, in another meeting on the morning of Oct. 6, specifically at eight o’clock, that is, six hours before the outbreak of the war, the possibility of launching a proactive strike against Egypt and Syria.

But Prime Minister Meir said: “My heart supports a war like this, but my mind sees it as harm to Israel before the international community.”

She added: “If it turns out that the Egyptians and Syrians do not actually intend to go to war, this will be an adventure by Israel that will lead to deaths and injuries, for nothing.” Defense Minister Moshe Dayan agreed.

Another official account, this time sourced from the book issued by the Mossad, states that Mossad chief Zvi Zamir informed Prime Minister Golda Meir, two years before the war, that is, in the fall of 1971, of Sadat’s intentions to fight Israel, and even told her about basic aspects of the Egyptian president’s strategy.

Zamir relied in his information on “the chief Mossad spy, Ashraf Marwan,” who was known as “The Angel.” The book indicates that Meir was so impressed by the depth of the information that she told him: “One day, when it can be revealed that you conveyed this information to me, you and your team will receive a medal.”

The Mossad book also indicates that Zamir “was able to obtain minutes of Sadat’s meetings with Soviet officials in Moscow in 1971, in which he told them that he was determined to restore all of Sinai, and not just part of it, either through diplomatic negotiations or through war with Israel.”



Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
TT
20

Sudan's Relentless War: A 70-Year Cycle of Conflict


Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)
Army chief Abdel Fattah al-Burhan (left) and RSF leader Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, known as Hemedti, pictured during their alliance to oust Omar al-Bashir in 2019 (AFP)

While world conflicts dominate headlines, Sudan’s deepening catastrophe is unfolding largely out of sight; a brutal war that has killed tens of thousands, displaced millions, and flattened entire cities and regions.

More than a year into the conflict, some observers question whether the international community has grown weary of Sudan’s seemingly endless cycles of violence. The country has endured nearly seven decades of civil war, and what is happening now is not an exception, but the latest chapter in a bloody history of rebellion and collapse.

The first of Sudan’s modern wars began even before the country gained independence from Britain. In 1955, army officer Joseph Lagu led the southern “Anyanya” rebellion, named after a venomous snake, launching a guerrilla war that would last until 1972.

A peace agreement brokered by the World Council of Churches and Ethiopia’s late Emperor Haile Selassie ended that conflict with the signing of the Addis Ababa Accord.

But peace proved short-lived. In 1983, then-president Jaafar Nimeiry reignited tensions by announcing the imposition of Islamic Sharia law, known as the “September Laws.” The move prompted the rise of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), led by John Garang, and a renewed southern insurgency that raged for more than two decades, outliving Nimeiry’s regime.

Under Omar al-Bashir, who seized power in a 1989 military coup, the war took on an Islamist tone. His government declared “jihad” and mobilized civilians in support of the fight, but failed to secure a decisive victory.

The conflict eventually gave way to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement, better known as the Naivasha Agreement, which was brokered in Kenya and granted South Sudan the right to self-determination.

In 2011, more than 95% of South Sudanese voted to break away from Sudan, giving birth to the world’s newest country, the Republic of South Sudan. The secession marked the culmination of decades of war, which began with demands for a federal system and ended in full-scale conflict. The cost: over 2 million lives lost, and a once-unified nation split in two.

But even before South Sudan’s independence became reality, another brutal conflict had erupted in Sudan’s western Darfur region in 2003. Armed rebel groups from the region took up arms against the central government, accusing it of marginalization and neglect. What followed was a ferocious counterinsurgency campaign that drew global condemnation and triggered a major humanitarian crisis.

As violence escalated, the United Nations deployed one of its largest-ever peacekeeping missions, the African Union-United Nations Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID), in a bid to stem the bloodshed.

Despite multiple peace deals, including the Juba Agreement signed in October 2020 following the ousting of long-time Islamist ruler, Bashir, fighting never truly ceased.

The Darfur war alone left more than 300,000 people dead and millions displaced. The International Criminal Court charged Bashir and several top officials, including Ahmed Haroun and Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, with war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Alongside the southern conflict, yet another war erupted in 2011, this time in the Nuba Mountains of South Kordofan and the Blue Nile region. The fighting was led by Abdelaziz al-Hilu, head of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement–North (SPLM–N), a group composed largely of northern fighters who had sided with the South during the earlier civil war under John Garang.

The conflict broke out following contested elections marred by allegations of fraud, and Khartoum’s refusal to implement key provisions of the 2005 Naivasha Agreement, particularly those related to “popular consultations” in the two regions. More than a decade later, war still grips both areas, with no lasting resolution in sight.

Then came April 15, 2023. A fresh war exploded, this time in the heart of the capital, Khartoum, pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the powerful paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Now entering its third year, the conflict shows no signs of abating.

According to international reports, the war has killed more than 150,000 people and displaced around 13 million, the largest internal displacement crisis on the planet. Over 3 million Sudanese have fled to neighboring countries.

Large swathes of the capital lie in ruins, and entire states have been devastated. With Khartoum no longer viable as a seat of power, the government and military leadership have relocated to the Red Sea city of Port Sudan.

Unlike previous wars, Sudan’s current conflict has no real audience. Global pressure on the warring factions has been minimal. Media coverage is sparse. And despite warnings from the United Nations describing the crisis as “the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe,” Sudan's descent into chaos remains largely ignored by the international community.